Speed camera mega-thread ***Read first post before posting***

cyclopath2001

Stinicker wrote: »

There was another tax collecting van right at the turn where you go over the Iniscarra reservoir today after Lissarda village. From Macroom to Ovens into the Dual Carriageway is plagued by the vans lately.

Cognitive distortions like this amply demonstrate why it is so urgent that persistant law breakers are removed from our roads for the good of society. This thread is full of the bizarre twists and turns of denial, blame shifting and convoluted justification for wrong doing, that are so typical of pathological criminal behaviour.

Speed limits are clearly posted, cars have speedometers.

End of.

Our man in Havana

Bitter much?

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Bitter much?

In denial, much?

Our man in Havana

No, why should I?

cyclopath2001

Our man in Havana wrote: »

No, why should I?

It's part of the dynamics of denial that those accused of wrongdoing, look to peer groups to reinforce their cognitive distortions, among which would be a false sense of victimisation, for example, accusing the authorities of engaging in cynical tax collection exercises, or pro-safety campaigners of being 'bitter'.

CoalBucket

Ive noticed in the past week a speed camera van on the cork to mallow road without any markings on the van. Its just a plain white transit and its only as you approach it you see all the camera gear. I thought these vans were to be clearly visable. Even for road safety purposes these vans should be clearly visable as they are parked up in the hard shoulder more times than not.

Our man in Havana

Most likely a garda van. Dublin reg?

Iwannahurl

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Bitter much?

IMO, there is far more bitterness among the speed/safety camera sceptics in this thread.

"Fish in a barrel", "safety revenue cameras", "stealth tax", "stealth policing", "tax collecting vans" etc etc. The same incredulous cynicism over and over.

CoalBucket

Our man in Havana wrote: »

Most likely a garda van. Dublin reg?

No, Kerry Reg.

cyclopath2001

CoalBucket wrote: »

Even for road safety purposes these vans should be clearly visable as they are parked up in the hard shoulder more times than not.

A big white van and you saw it, what's so invisible about that?

dr.fuzzenstein

Iwannahurl wrote: »

IMO, there is far more bitterness among the speed/safety camera sceptics in this thread.

"Fish in a barrel", "safety revenue cameras", "stealth tax", "stealth policing", "tax collecting vans" etc etc. The same incredulous cynicism over and over.

Never forget: The government doesn't give a sh*t about anything except votes and money.
I haven't been caught, but I'm not exactly a lunatic driver, sedate is the better expression right now.
But I have never seen those cameras at any spots I might consider dangerous.
I've seen them on wide open stretches of road that carry a suspiciously low limit.
Reminds me a bit of Austria.
On some stretches of wide open road, the limit would go from 100 to 60 back to 100 for no apparent reason.
Well, the reason became clear, the limit was posted to catch people, especially tourists out, a copper would stand there with his hairdrier and wave people into a car park where at least 5 more coppers would process people, cash, cheque, credit card all welcome.
That is nothing but highway robbery, the motorist as a cashcow, a scam, I'm sorry but replace "cynicism" with "realism" and you've got it.
The motorist is nothing but a cashcow, if we all stopped driving and buying cars, like the government pretends we should, the state would be broke in 6 months.

D_murph

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Never forget: The government doesn't give a sh*t about anything except votes and money.
I haven't been caught, but I'm not exactly a lunatic driver, sedate is the better expression right now.
But I have never seen those cameras at any spots I might consider dangerous.
I've seen them on wide open stretches of road that carry a suspiciously low limit.
Reminds me a bit of Austria.
On some stretches of wide open road, the limit would go from 100 to 60 back to 100 for no apparent reason.
Well, the reason became clear, the limit was posted to catch people, especially tourists out, a copper would stand there with his hairdrier and wave people into a car park where at least 5 more coppers would process people, cash, cheque, credit card all welcome.
That is nothing but highway robbery, the motorist as a cashcow, a scam, I'm sorry but replace "cynicism" with "realism" and you've got it.
The motorist is nothing but a cashcow, if we all stopped driving and buying cars, like the government pretends we should, the state would be broke in 6 months.

I couldn't agree more with you. Unfortunately, there are always going to be those that have given in to the brainwashing and BS that we have been fed about these vans, even before they came in. Silly ads on the radio calling them "safety cameras" :rolleyes: and the TV ones comparing them to life buoys/rings that you see on the side of a river really took the biscuit IMO :rolleyes:.

No prizes for guessing who they are around here though and trying to use words such as cynicism, cognitive distortions and denial to try and undermine other peoples view is extremely weak but always predictable considering the source I suppose. Some people will believe anything you tell them and they have chosen to believe the aforementioned BS TV and radio ads and no amount of reasoning is going to change their minds.

The fact is that they only detect speed so safety is a misnomer straight away. I could be langers drunk in a highly un-roadworthy car with no tax or insurance but as long as I drive slowly, I will not be caught. Safety my arse :rolleyes:.

cyclopath2001

D_murph wrote: »

The fact is that they only detect speed so safety is a misnomer straight away. I could be langers drunk in a highly un-roadworthy car with no tax or insurance but as long as I drive slowly, I will not be caught. Safety my arse :rolleyes:.

Such people are caught by other means.

This in no way invalidates the idea that detecting people who deliberately break safety laws and putting them off the road is an obviously sound road safety measure.

Would you eat in a restaurant where the chefs didn't wash their hands? If you were the chef, would you be complaining that the authorities should leave them alone and pursue tax evaders instead?

born2bwild

I love this poster's turn of phrase: 'Cognitive distortions' followed by 'bizarre twists and turns of denial, blame shifting and convoluted justification for wrong doing, that are so typical of pathological criminal behaviour', alliteratively joined by the 'dynamics of denial' and polished off with 'false sense of victimisation'.
I know where the Man Booker is going anyway.
Jettison the flowery language and what you have is an argument based on pop-psychological pseudo-concepts that ignores the cold hard facts.
These vans are primarily intended to collect money from citizens of this state. I'm not denying that they may actually save lives: people will drive more slowly but if saving lives was the prime motivation there would not be so many units stationed on wide, high quality sections of road.

cyclopath2001

born2bwild wrote: »

if saving lives was the prime motivation there would not be so many units stationed on wide, high quality sections of road.

If putting law breakers off the road is the objective, then placing them where many law breakers can be found is quite logical.

You make it sound like speeders are victims. This is nonsense. There are signs showing the limit, the drivers have speedometers.

These people are ignoring safety laws, it does not matter where they are caught doing it.

dr.fuzzenstein

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

If putting law breakers off the road is the objective, then placing them where many law breakers can be found is quite logical.

You make it sound like speeders are victims. This is nonsense. There are signs showing the limit, the drivers have speedometers.

These people are ignoring safety laws, it does not matter where they are caught doing it.

Bah, the cameras are always in the same locations, people just need to slow down in the same five spots and no problem.
On motorways watch out for the usual spots, same on some main roads, but going all over Clare and Limerick, once you're on the backroads the speedlimit is the top speed of your car.
A deterrent? I don't feel deterred.

Break all ties

people just need to slow down in the same five spots and no problem

They are as predicable as a dose of the clap.

A deterrent? I don't feel deterred.

Certainly not.

dr.fuzzenstein

Break all ties wrote: »

They are as predicable as a dose of the clap.

Wouldn't know, haven't had that in weeks!:D

bbam

The thing is they are positioning vans where no accidents have happened in recent memory...
There is a local road where there was a fatality five years ago... no supprise to see a van on that road... thing is the van is 4 miles from where the accident happened just inside a 60km limit which is a crazy distance out of the town.

I'd say the current campaign is 80% a revenue generation project..

Interestingly does anyone know the comparative numbers being caught between 4pm and 6pm compared to between 3-5am??

Or even the daily revenue generated??

Iwannahurl

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

Bah, the cameras are always in the same locations, people just need to slow down in the same five spots and no problem.
On motorways watch out for the usual spots, same on some main roads, but going all over Clare and Limerick, once you're on the backroads the speedlimit is the top speed of your car.
A deterrent? I don't feel deterred.

Where are all the people who complain about 80 kph backroads when you need them?

born2bwild wrote: »

I love this poster's turn of phrase: 'Cognitive distortions' followed by 'bizarre twists and turns of denial, blame shifting and convoluted justification for wrong doing, that are so typical of pathological criminal behaviour', alliteratively joined by the 'dynamics of denial' and polished off with 'false sense of victimisation'.

I know where the Man Booker is going anyway.

Jettison the flowery language and what you have is an argument based on pop-psychological pseudo-concepts that ignores the cold hard facts. These vans are primarily intended to collect money from citizens of this state. I'm not denying that they may actually save lives: people will drive more slowly but if saving lives was the prime motivation there would not be so many units stationed on wide, high quality sections of road.

Given the "revenue" generated by the speed/safety cameras versus the cost of running the programme plus the costs to the nation of road fatalities and injuries, are you certain that there is a net financial gain for the state?

If so, what is the evidence? If not, how can a net loss be regarded as revenue?

D_murph

cyclopath2001 wrote: »

Such people are caught by other means.

This in no way invalidates the idea that detecting people who deliberately break safety laws and putting them off the road is an obviously sound road safety measure.

What it invalidates is the blatant lies used before and since their roll out last year. Comparing them to actual life rings and calling them life savers particularly disgusted me as a shameless means of propaganda to convince the gullible amongst us that they are not about revenue.

The thing is though, you do not have to fool everyone to get your way, just enough of them.

Would you eat in a restaurant where the chefs didn't wash their hands? If you were the chef, would you be complaining that the authorities should leave them alone and pursue tax evaders instead?

Totally different argument but if you want..

How many lives could be saved if they put that 65 million euros into suicide prevention measures instead of this? Im willing to be a lot more than what they are claiming will be saved on the roads but theres no money in that :rolleyes:.

cyclopath2001

bbam wrote: »

The thing is they are positioning vans where no accidents have happened in recent memory

So, let's keep it that way?

Surely a good place to have a detection van is wherever the law is being broken?

Iwannahurl

D_murph wrote: »

What it invalidates is the blatant lies used before and since their roll out last year. Comparing them to actual life rings and calling them life savers particularly disgusted me as a shameless means of propaganda to convince the gullible amongst us that they are not about revenue.

The thing is though, you do not have to fool everyone to get your way, just enough of them.

Totally different argument but if you want..

How many lives could be saved if they put that 65 million euros into suicide prevention measures instead of this? Im willing to be a lot more than what they are claiming will be saved on the roads but theres no money in that :rolleyes:.

I presume it's reasonable for me to infer that you are not one of those gullible fools.

In which case, can you cite some direct evidence which demonstrates unequivocally that speed/safety camera operations do NOT save lives where they are implemented?

By the way, authoritative evidence please, not Daily Mail articles and the like.

Shane732

I haven't really bother to get involved in this thread up till now but the last few pages I've read were enough to drag me in.

There is a speed camera that takes up position just off the end of my road. I've lived in the same place since I was born (22 years) and my parents have lived there for over 30 years. I certainly can't recall any fatal accident on the stretch of road where the van is located. Being honest I can't recall any accident at all, all though I'm sort there has been some accidents. My parents can't recall seeing or hearing of a fatal accident on that stretch of road since they moved in.

As an entirely unrelated coincidence (yea right!) the speed limit has recently been reduced from 100 km to 80km due to better roads being open etc.. The stretch of road is probably a mile long and is dead straight - It's almost impossible to keep it to 80km.

I would really love it someone could explain to me why this piece of road was picked. My cynical mind would lead me to believe that something like this is just a complete revenue collecting exercise. All though I'm sure some of the more knowledgeable posters in this thread will inform me of the correct reason - i.e. to save lives.... Oh wait no one has died on the piece of road for, say 30 years?

Posters can use whatever type of flowery language they want to try and justify the camera but at the end of the day the cameras are there to make money.


Why don't we implement a system whereby individuals received points but don't have to pay a fine. That way drivers are punished but no money is made from the exercise. It would get rid of people’s opinions that the camera are just there to collect money and drivers would still get banned when they reached 12 points. Of course this will never happen.

Shane732

Iwannahurl wrote: »

I presume it's reasonable for me to infer that you are not one of those gullible fools.

In which case, can you cite some direct evidence which demonstrates unequivocally that speed/safety camera operations do NOT save lives where they are implemented?

By the way, authoritative evidence please, not Daily Mail articles and the like.

Can you cite some direct evidence which demonstrates unequivocally that speed/safety camera operations DO save lives where they are implemented?

By the way, authoritative evidence, please not Daily Mail articles and the like.

Shane732

Rumor has it that if you go fast enough you can actually beat the technology..... So the motto to everyone should be to drive as fast as you possibly can in the hope that you'll beat the camera!!


I suppose we could just hope that the IRA take a disliking to the camera and "sort" them out!!!!!!!

Anan1

Shane732 wrote: »

Posters can use whatever type of flowery language they want to try and justify the camera but at the end of the day the cameras are there to make money.

I was under the impression that cameras cost money, rather than making it?

Iwannahurl

Shane732 wrote: »

Can you cite some direct evidence which demonstrates unequivocally that speed/safety camera operations DO save lives where they are implemented?

By the way, authoritative evidence, please not Daily Mail articles and the like.

Done. See some of my posts elsewhere in this forum.

I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary.




EDIT: To save you time, here's a 2010 review of the evidence published by the Royal Automobile Club. Warning: large file I think.

If you can find anything comparable that shows speed/safety cameras to be ineffective, I'd be very grateful if you could post the link(s) here. I'm always interested in research that challenges assumptions.

maglite

Iwannahurl wrote: »

You're not, but you won't get much support for your view here.

I think a lot of the problem is the way they are collecting revenue. They are on the "best" roads in the country, just after where the speed drops to lower limits. They are trying to hide themselves. I honestly question why some of these areas have been chosen. They will ticket you for 2-3Km/h over the limit. At least the Gardaí have the decency to give you a margin.

Shane732

Iwannahurl wrote: »

Done. See some of my posts elsewhere in this forum.

I'm still waiting for evidence to the contrary.




EDIT: To save you time, here's a 2010 review of the evidence published by the Royal Automobile Club. Warning: large file I think.

If you can find anything comparable that shows speed/safety cameras to be ineffective, I'd be very grateful if you could post the link(s) here. I'm always interested in research that challenges assumptions.

This is a UK report, right? Have you posted any evidence in relation to Ireland?

I just briefly had a look at the first few pages of the report but I find the following statement very interesting:

"But after working in all these factors, the judgement can be made that in the year ending March 2004, camera operations at more than 4,000 sites across Great Britain prevented some 3,600 personal injury collisions (PIC), saving around 1,000 people from being killed or seriously injured (KSI)"

Presumably the fair decent body of work has gone into creating this report and it's only possible for the author to make a judgement. I haven't looked at the maths behind the calculation in detail but I would have expected a stronger term that the author making a judgement.

Is it possible that some of the reduction in KSI could have been as a result of increased technology and safety? Is this built into the KSI equation?

Didn't some of the local authorities in the UK actually stop using cameras because they were of the opinion that they were of little of no benefit?